Professional Truck and Trailer

[Ciaran Trainor]

Is it just me that sees this.
Multiple times in the professional game, teams break away from a maul, often after an attacking line out, and ref shouts same maul when they have deliberately wheeled and disengaged.
For the purposes of this thread we'll ignore players binding in front of the ball carrier and the ball carrier slipping binding.

 

[Decorily]

Is it just me that sees this.
Multiple times in the professional game, teams break away from a maul, often after an attacking line out, and ref shouts same maul when they have deliberately wheeled and disengaged.
For the purposes of this thread we'll ignore players binding in front of the ball carrier and the ball carrier slipping binding.

Any video?
Something like I saw Ireland do yesterday I suspect is what you are referring to ....
In that instance didn't see anything wrong.

 

[didds]

if its is deliberate, its just a team using the laws to their advantage. CF that 10.1m "offside" player discussion.

 

[Volun-selected]

I can see your point that we don’t allow a truck and trailer elsewhere, but until WR decide otherwise I see this as a natural consequence of allowing the ball to be moved back. What’s the alternative? Allow splitting the maul to end it, or (for utter chaos) to insist that once bound to the maul you have to stay bound and we can have a mobile wall game

 

[Phil E]

I can see your point that we don’t allow a truck and trailer elsewhere, but until WR decide otherwise I see this as a natural consequence of allowing the ball to be moved back. What’s the alternative? Allow splitting the maul to end it, or (for utter chaos) to insist that once bound to the maul you have to stay bound and we can have a mobile wall game

This used to be called changing lanes.

Essentially the ball carrier and a couple of other bods cannot break off the maul at the back and carry on down the pitch.

However if everyone else breaks off from them, that is ok.

This usually means the maul splits apart rather then the ball carrier and his mates leaving it intentionally. Still the same maul is the call, because the opposition leaving a maul doesn't end it.

 

[Locke]

This used to be called changing lanes.

Essentially the ball carrier and a couple of other bods cannot break off the maul at the back and carry on down the pitch.

However if everyone else breaks off from them, that is ok.

This usually means the maul splits apart rather then the ball carrier and his mates leaving it intentionally. Still the same maul is the call, because the opposition leaving a maul doesn't end it.

At a recent USA Rugby Referees camp, during the lineout/maul session, they spent several minutes explaining/showing/discussing “changing lanes” in the maul and that we were to penalize it.

 

[Rich_NL]

So the ball has to be passed away? Or can the 9 pull it out of the maul and go for a run himself?

 

[Volun-selected]

Or can the 9 pull it out of the maul and go for a run himself?

Isn’t that one of the ways listed to successfully end a maul?

 

[Rich_NL]

Well, quite. So how is it different from breaking off from the maul and carrying on? Unless unbinding with the ball is the problem.

 

[Dickie E]

Well, quite. So how is it different from breaking off from the maul and carrying on? Unless unbinding with the ball is the problem.

If its a single player breaking off with the ball, he can do what ever he likes.

The issue is when you have a pod detaching with the ball. If its a new maul (ie change of channel) then its an obstruction issue if ball at back, or a pre-bind flying wedge issue if ball at front.

 

[crossref]

If its a single player breaking off with the ball, he can do what ever he likes.

The issue is when you have a pod detaching with the ball. If its a new maul (ie change of channel) then its an obstruction issue if ball at back, or a pre-bind flying wedge issue if ball at front.

If ball carrying pod detach, then under the Law the maul must be over, and there cannot be a new maul as there are no opponents

If a ball carrying pod suddenly finds itself with no opposition, because their opponents have detached and left.. then the (same) maul still exists

 

[Dickie E]

If ball carrying pod detach, then under the Law the maul must be over, and there cannot be a new maul as there are no opponents

If a ball carrying pod suddenly finds itself with no opposition, because their opponents have detached and left.. then the (same) maul still exists

The only way you distinguish between these is by assessing if chanel has changed

 

[BikingBud]

The only way you distinguish between these is by assessing if chanel has changed

And the channel changes by?

The team with the ball applying a slight squint and fortuitously finding the defenders that were "swimming" up the other channel are left behind.

Of course we didn't detach from the maul ref the other team were just were trying to spin us and they just fell off the back

It can't be the same maul if there is no maul, no opposition, so defenders can tackle and interfere.

Looking forward to "MAULGATE" not sure if this has been listed here before but worth a 10 min read Ruckgate

 

[Dickie E]

And the channel changes by?

The team with the ball applying a slight squint and fortuitously finding the defenders that were "swimming" up the other channel are left behind.

Of course we didn't detach from the maul ref the other team were just were trying to spin us and they just fell off the back

It can't be the same maul if there is no maul, no opposition, so defenders can tackle and interfere.

Looking forward to "MAULGATE" not sure if this has been listed here before but worth a 10 min read Ruckgate

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that current practice is wrong or that my interpretation of current practice is wrong

 

[didds]

other than ruckgate occurred by NOT creating a ruck in the first place

the maul equivalent is when nobody engages (typically at a lineout) - I cant find the video now but there's one where both sides are just stood still at a 5m linout with the attackers with the ball having caught it

 

[BikingBud]

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that current practice is wrong or that my interpretation of current practice is wrong

I'm suggesting that "allowances" are made in the game that enable the showcase event.

If you provide a get out clause, ie the channel has changed therefore it's OK, you give the well coached team a route to exploit by ensuring they manipulate and shift the point of attack and shed the opposition in a way that removes any contest. You in fact legalise the truck and trailer that elsewhere in the game is clear and obvious obstruction.

Link that with the lack of enforcement of players leaving the line and pre-binding before the ball has been thrown and we have a compound effect that whilst providing scores and what is assessed as exciting rugby does not comply with the laws.

 

[crossref]

Current reffing convention is to be very kind to the ball carrying team

I don't like it, but I fall in with it and try to ref as generally expected

 

[didds]

I can see its a nightmare to ref or legislate for. 'Cos make any "break away" N/A and all defenders have to do is leave and its maul over. At a 5m lineout all they need is one player to bind on for half a second then leave and that's it - no drive over mauls. Now that may be seen as a good thing in some quarters of course - but its reducing tactical options

 

[chbg]

I see 'changing channels' in much the same way as refereeing the 'gate' at a tackle/breakdown: drive towards any part of the opposition's GL all well and good, it's the opposition's fault if they are not defending across that axis; step sideways to avoid the opposition (and your own players in front) and if they do not come across with you, then I'm considering that might be a new axis/channel.

Teams do seem to be surprised if they are picked up on it (mind you, it's only once or twice a season at my level).

 

[Volun-selected]

With regards to “Changing Channels“, what sort of site picture are you all looking for?

What do you as the giveaways between a gaggle of players where the BC and a couple of supports slide off/around the back which we want to stop vs. the defenders have a lopsided line - say all the forwards on one side and the maul shears in two as the BC and pod just keep plodding on?

So far my teams have not had the gumption to try this - they keep it nice and simple and it’s usually one big cuddle before the ball carrier drops to the floor.